Operationalizing Humanics Philosophy
The Keystone
for a Diverse and Pluralistic Springfield College
Dr. Diane L. Potter
Distinguished Springfield College Professor of Humanics
September 1, 1989
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
President Falcone, distinguished colleagues, I would ask the former Humanics Professors in the audience to stand as I read your names. I would like to thank Marty Anisman for the appointment to this most honored position. At the time he asked me to accept the appointment, I protested - not a lot - but honestly because I did not perceive myself as appropriate for this role. I do not perceive myself as a scholar and I may prove that an accurate perception today. I don't think of myself as distinguished - old maybe - tired sometimes - but distinguished - gray hair not withstanding - no! Perceptions are an important focus of much of what I will have to say later in this presentation. They are personal, and therefore tend to be as different as the people perceiving. I do thank you Marty because as the events of last spring unfolded and I began to think of the task of developing this talk, my perception was that we as an institution have come to a fork in the road. We may have come upon this decision making point a little late compared with some other institutions of higher education. Nevertheless, our time has come to chart a course that may well be as important as any previous set of decisions made at this institution. I have found it challenging, frightening, and invigorating to deal with the issues that have brought us to this point. I do not presume to have the answer as to which path to take. For sure, we as a college community must deal with the issues and make some wise decisions in the months ahead in order to educate and help each of us and our students prepare to serve all humankind.
Marty, I for one congratulate you on your new position, but I am sorry you will not be here to help chart the course by which Springfield will move into the 21st century. Please know, you have made a significant difference for many of us these past three years and it will be something we will have to build on in the months and years ahead.
INTRODUCTION OF THE LECTURE
We have had a busy and, at least for me, stimulating day already. When the Senate Forum Committee spoke with me early in the summer about some of their deliberations and their plans for Faculty Institute and asked if I could tie my presentation into this focus, I was excited at the prospect. The fork in the road I alluded to earlier is the decision this Institution must make about becoming a more diverse institution of higher education and operationalizing our Humanics Philosophy as we strive to achieve a pluralistic campus.
Under the current administration, we have made significant strides in both seeking applications, and then hiring qualified white women for administrative and faculty positions. With all due respect to the School of Human Services, the following data does not include their students, faculty or administration. The problems of diversity do not lie with their numbers, nor are their numbers the answer to the problems we have been discussing today and about which I am going to speak. Unfortunately the perception of some people is that the addition of the School of Human Services is a "quick fix" to at least the numbers game of diversity of students, faculty, and administration. I cannot accept that view because at the present time, with very few exceptions, "the twain do not meet." (I sincerely hope the original of that saying - the twain shall never meet is not true) At the present time, the benefits accruing from the addition of The School; a diverse student body, faculty, and administration are not real because there is yet to be integration of Springfield College and The School of Human Services into one educational institution. When this integration does occur, the statistical picture should be somewhat different.
In the meantime -- Of the total number of administrators and faculty, 58% of administrators are women and 34% of the faculty are women (National figure1985 faculty = 27.5%). Our past and current record relative to hiring men and women of color in those aforementioned positions is atrocious. People of color are for the most part non-existent in our faculty and administration. Of the faculty teaching our traditional undergraduate students, 1 woman and 4 men are minorities, or 4.1% of that faculty group. Among those five people, there is no black faculty member. Minorities make up 6.8% of the administrative staff of 88 people. Our student body continues to be predominantly white (95.5% as of May 1988). The fact that women are the majority in our undergraduate enrollment must cause some of the "old guard" considerable pain! The International Academy and our strong contingent of international students at the graduate level are proof of our international outreach. However, what is our record of recruiting and enrolling cultural minorities who are part of our American society, such as Asians, naturalized citizens, first generation "Americans" of various ethnic backgrounds? Who is educating the "whole person" to go and work "in service" with these populations in our country as well as in the world!
In addition to the lack of appropriate racial diversity in our college community, racism, sexism, intolerance of diverse perspectives on religion, sexual preference, and disability are not strangers to Springfield College. Diversity is both visible and invisible. Race is visible, racism is invisible until actions make the attitude visible. Pluralism is a step beyond diversity. Diversity speaks to access, admittance; pluralism, on the other hand, has to do with values. We are all diverse - we all have cultural heritages. Pluralism speaks to valuing that diversity. Our Black, Hispanic, and International Asian students make us at least to some degree a racially diverse campus. The acts of violence against these and other students by their Springfield College peers is evidence that we do not have a pluralistic view toward that racial diversity. The value of decency - how we treat people - is not a value held by all in this campus community. Students ridiculing the accent of a foreign born faculty member is evidence of intolerance, lack of decency; even though the hiring of the faculty member spoke to increasing diversity.
After women are hired, or admitted as students, are they valued on an equal basis with men or are the sex role stereotypes relative to objectivity, rationality, independence, ambition, and responsibility operative? When Potter raises her voice in a heated Faculty Senate debate over the parking problems on campus, is she viewed as being emotional, irrational, aggressive, "having her period"; while Cohen is -- concerned, making his point, being objective?
Are the people of color that we do have on campus valued on an equal basis with those who are white? Do we "see" a difference? As a faculty member walking into one of your classes on Wednesday, you will visibly "see" the Black, Asian or Hispanic student seated in the class. But, will that visible difference translate to the invisible differences that are your perceptions of - or attitudes about -- these students. You will visibly "see" men and women in your class. Will you expect your women students to do better in your class because you perceive them as being "smarter"? Will your expectations for any of the students in your class be different based on their sex, race, or ethnicity? In my softball skills classes, do I expect the "boys" to be able to throw a ball well; while I accept, even take for granted, lack of throwing ability on the part of the "girls".
If we are truly working toward pluralism in our value system - or view of people - we will see the differences, but work hard to accept those differences find not allow different expectations based solely on sex, race or ethnicity. Once we know our students, we nobly have different expectations of them based on their current level of experience and background, but not because one is a woman, one is a Black or another is an Italian. Will I "see" the visible differences? Yes, I will. Will I act on the stereotypes inherent in the differences I see? Hopefully not as much as I used to. Why? Because at least now I have some awareness and that is the first step in making changes in behavior. We are not "bad people" because we have the perceptions we have. We ignorant in the true sense of that word; we lack knowledge and experience, we are unaware. The perception of many of our students, faculty, administrators and staff is that we do not have problems with racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, visible and invisible differences of diversity and pluralism. U Mass does, Smith does, but we have the Humanics Philosophy -- we're O.K.-- Or are we?
Geis, Carter, and Butler in "Seeing and Evaluating People", a summary of scientific research, quote studies by Nauta 1971 and Smith & Miller, 1983 "All perception is interpretation. When we see a person or performance, our conscious experience is that we are seeing what is actually there. But in fact, we are seeing what is there as it is organized and interpreted by our previous knowledge....All perception is an approximation of reality. All evidence is more or less ambiguous." They go on later in a more specific application to say "...We all developed our previous experience about what reality is in a society in which traditional sex stereotypes were assumed as accurate" (pp. 1-3). Although not specified in the quote just used, the same inference regarding stereotypes could be made to race (Jimmy the Greek hear this!) ethnicity, disabled people, gays, lesbians, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Charismatics.
As a college community, how do we develop at least a consensus view of a diverse and pluralistic Springfield College, an institution free of discrimination and oppression? "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!" "Seeing is believing." What is the reality we seek? How much cultural diversity is appropriate for this institution? Each of us brings his or her own view of reality to the discussion. What can we bring as fact to this discussion?
Our mission statement says the College is committed to its century-old philosophy known as Humanics, which emphasizes the development of the total person in spirit, mind and body for service to others. Who are the "others " referred to in the statement? David Hamburg states in his article "Disadvantaged Minority Education: Free at Last?" "Minorities constitute the majority of school enrollments in twenty-three of the twenty-five largest cities in the nation. By the year 2000, fifty-three major cities will have a majority of minorities" (p. 4). The Census Bureau Figures for 1986 (the latest available) show that 83% of the 18-24 year old population are White, 13.8% are Black, and 9.5% are Hispanic. Thus the minority college age population is 23.3%. Are we preparing a significant number of service oriented people to work with these populations? Does our minority enrollment figure of 4.5% for 1988 compare favorably with any of these data regardless of the year? Do we have a significant number of minority faculty to serve as role models for our minority students? Where are the Jesse Parks' and the Maddie Edwards' serving as a role model for all of us regardless of race? Are we meeting our stated objective of educating our students for service to all humankind?
In this introduction, I have tried to identify two issues, diversity and pluralism which I feel Springfield College (WE) must address in the immediate future. Having given you my perception of where we are, I will, in the time remaining, attempt to give you Potter s opinion (no more, no less) on some ways in which we can address these issues. In the process, I hope to identify what "Humanics" has to do with all this! First a little history!
Brief Historical Perspective of "Humanics"
Having read the other lectures and knowing the wonderful and thorough job previous Distinguished Springfield Professors of Humanics have done discussing Humanics including the explanation of the first use of the term here at Springfield, I had decided not to include anything on the historical use of the term. Then I realized many in the audience today are "new" to Springfield College and unless you did a lot of homework before accepting your new position, you won't have a clue about the basis for today's presentation. Secondly, any assumption on my part that all returning (not "old") colleagues in the audience today have, one - either read all these lectures or, two - remember everything they heard while listening to each one for the first time, is probably an erroneous assumption.
This, as background for my talk about Humanics today, a very brief history lesson is in order. Springfield College was founded as The International Young Men's Christian Association Training School. The curriculum had what we would call today two professional preparation programs; one to train Y.M.C.A. secretaries (the "Y" leadership); and two, to train the physical directors (the teachers of the programs in the "Y"). In addition to the training provided in these two professional courses of study, the leadership of the institution determined that all students needed a better general education foundation than they were getting at the time. A general course (All College Requirements!) consisting of two major areas 1, the study of man, and 2, cultural study was developed. The term Humanics was coined by Dr. Dogget and Professor Burr in 1905 to describe the "unique" curriculum of the College focusing on the study of Man in his wholeness and also to identify the degrees which would be conferred, the Bachelor and Master of Humanics degrees.
As a student at Springfield College in the 50's, I never heard the word 'humanics'' used to describe the curriculum, nor was it associated with any degree. As a matter of fact, I never heard the term, period.
Until Dr. Glenn Olds, the 8th President of Springfield College, revived the concept of humanics and established the Distinguished Springfield Professor of Humanics position in the mid-60's, the "triangle", - spirit, mind and body was the emblem of choice and the words used to describe the "Springfield" person. We didn't talk about a philosophy. We talked about a person exemplifying the "Springfield ideal", being a ''triangle'' or having it firmly emblazoned on one's forehead. To this day, when I meet some colleagues (who also are recipients of one or more degrees from here) at professional conferences, the first thing they do is "shine up" the triangle!
I make these comments in the context of a discussion of history because I really think "being a triangle", having the "Springfield spirit", exemplifying the "Springfield ideal", and having the "Humanics philosophy" or "doing Humanics" are basically all one ad the same thing. They are all symbols used to represent what we as an institution stand for and what we do. Words, emblems, philosophical constructs, nouns, adjectives - What's the difference? For the sake of an intellectual discussion, one could present arguments that there are indeed differences. To me -- today--what does matter is whether we do what we say we stand for. Rhetoric (used here as the dictionary definition "artificial eloquence") about the Humanics Philosophy is no substitute for action.
A Springfield education has always focused on spirit, mind and body. In the not-too-far-distant past this was a holistic view of man, (man being not in the generic sense.) The early "Y" secretaries and physical directors were all men. (I wonder if the current situation is much different!) Women were admitted (had access) on an basis in the first half century or so of Springfield's history. Dr. Arsenian, in his final Humanics Lecture, speaking of his early days as a faculty member in the late 30's, recalled President Best saying "We close the doors on them, but they enter from the windows." (Congdon, 1978, p. 47) Springfield College was a men's school until 1951 when it officially became coeducational.
Our view for the future must truly be a holistic view of humankind. There is an excellent statement in the current Springfield College Bulletin. It reads, "The emphasis at Springfield College is on our Humanics Philosophy, the education of the total person -- the spirit, the mind, the body -- with motivation of service to humanity that is international, intercultural, interracial and interreligious" (p.4). It states what we stand for, describes what we do, gives some direction as to the expectations we have for our students. The important words, the symbols are there - some from the past - spirit, mind, body, service; some new - person not man, - international, intercultural, interracial, interreligious to emphasize service to all humanity. It has the makings of a good statement of educational philosophy. As with most philosophical statements, it doesn't tell us how to do these things. Yet, it does give direction for some goal statements, for some "how to do it" kinds of things. In addition, because it says we do these things, it implies that in fact we do do them! Yes, the problem with having a philosophy is the expectation that we must live up to it. So much for history!!
THE PLACE OF A PHILOSOPHY
I do not plan to redefine Humanics. I don t think the "wheel" needs to be reinvented. However, I am going to talk about the Humanics Philosophy rather than Humanics, the noun. Just as the wheel was invented for utilitarian purposes by "what's-his-name" - you know the person who got sick of carrying the week's groceries back to the cave in armfuls, I believe a "philosophy" is for use.
I do not intend to intellectualize about philosophy. Rather, I would like to discuss the Humanics Philosophy, in the context of an educational philosophy. As such, it must affect not only the stated mission of this institution, but in fact everything we do, which is, at this point in time, of great importance.
A philosophy in this context is important to me as a teacher of curriculum development because of the place it has in the decision-making process. The curricular decision-making process includes the development of goals (what we want our students to achieve), scope (the content selected to provide our students with the opportunity to achieve the goals), and sequence ( the order of presenting the content). The philosophy is the foundation upon which everything is built and from whence everything comes. In a program it guides our curricula decision making; in an institution it guides our institutional decision making and is the foundation for what we do.
Goals of a program (or institution) emanate from the philosophy. The generalized beliefs, ideals, and values expressed in a philosophy must be put into specific terms (preferably stated as outcomes) so that one has a sense of what one has to do to achieve them. Goals are action statements that enable one to operationalize a philosophy.
Are there specific, inherent values in our Humanics Philosophy? If so, is it important that our students acquire them? If so, where do they have the opportunity to learn them? Is there a body of knowledge that every "Springfield student" should possess (All College Requirements)? If so, upon what do we make decisions about content? Is the "core" the traditional Arts and Sciences of Math, English, History (Western only), Sociology, etc. What differentiates a "Springfield" student from any other undergraduate who is being liberally educated? Might not an examination of our stated mission give some direction as to what should be included as content in the general education area? What about service? What about Humanics? Are there certain skills, attributes, and abilities that all Springfield students should acquire regardlesss of the "human helping service area" the student plans to enter? How do we prepare our students to go out and "serve" humankind?
Do our currently proposed All College Requirements provide the opportunity for our students to learn About Humanics, to become educated in the Humanics Philosophy? Is it a part of the "Springfield education" or is it a myth? In the curriculum decision masking process, selection of content is based on the goals of the program. In a discipline such as physical education, we select content so that students can experience activities that will enable them to achieve the stated program goals. If the development of fitness is a program goal, and the development of cardio-vascular fitness is a schooling level goal for middle school students, then selection of an activity such as jogging is appropriate. Selecting archery to provide an opportunity for students to achieve cardio-vascular fitness "does not compute!" Having archery in the program because we have the equipment, because Meyer and Schwarz say it is an appropriate activity for junior high, and it has always been in the program (plus I can teach it) are not ''goal oriented" reasons for the selection of that activity. That kind of curricular decision-making has nothing to do with putting an educational philosophy into operation.
If our philosophy refers to our students having a service motivation that is international, intercultural, interracial, and interreligious, are we assuming they are going to learn that from Western Civ. when over one-half of the worlds population is "Non-Western?" Where in our education do we provide our students with an opportunity to learn to be tolerant of other's views, to care for one another, to be understanding of one another, to love one another? What would motivate one more to enter a human helping profession than love of humanity? That doesn't mean I have to like everybody all the time, but I do have to value their existence.
Dr. Vanderbeck talked about "doing" Humanics. I am proposing that we must do a better job of doing Humanics and of operationalizing our Humanics Philosophy than we are currently doing. I am certainly not the first Humanics Professor nor writer about Humanics to call the troops to action or to describe examples of Humanics in action. While Dr. Vanderbeck gave some examples of Humanics in action, Drs. Parr, Silvia, Ross, and Dean Merriam each had suggestions for action. Dean Merriam's report on one of the Faculty Dinner- Discussions in February, 1959 included a suggestion from Dick Havel --"the need to clarify the concept of Humanics; and having become clear, to use Humanics as a tool for evaluating the curriculum;..." (Congdon, 1984, p. 133). There are a few in the room today who probably remember those discussions and know whether Havel's suggestion was ever implemented. Even if it was, curriculum development is an ongoing process and surely thirty years later it's time to take another look! Thus, I propose that we not only operationalize "Spirit, Mind and Body'' and our Humanics Philosophy, but that we do it in our curriculum, our hiring practices and in the recruitment of our student body. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, just make a commitment to a task that needs doing. Some poor soul reviewing these lectures in the year 2000 preparing for the 27th Humanics Lecture would probably ascertain that Van, others, and I were talking about one and the same thing!! What's an educational philosophy for? Use! It tells us not only what we stand for, what makes us unique; it demands that we make it real.
THE ACTION PHASE
Action usually involves change and for many people change is threatening. Change means things will be different, change means that I have to be different. I don't want to be different; I like me; I'm comfortable just the way I am.
Becoming a more diverse ad pluralistic college community is going to mean change. I reaffirm the contentions made this morning that at present we are not sufficiently diverse; and, more importantly, we are not pluralistic in our attitudes and values. We need a plan for change - heaven forbid another plan! For the new members in the audience, I must explain that for members of this faculty and administration Task Forces for Long Range Plans, or Strategic Plans are a way of life around here!
Having been on the faculty almost thirty years, I personally have been through three of these "Long Range" planning processes. They have all been participatory in nature, we as faculty and administrators have held the opportunity for input. The current draft of The Strategic Plan is in a state the others never got to, a set of broadly defined goals expanded in some cases into specific objectives. The actual procedures for attainment of the goals are not complete yet, but the plan to date is the beginning of a "written plan for action."
I would use an Educational Model for Instruction by James B. Macdonald (Macdonald & Leeper, 1965) as an analogy. Macdonald s model is made up of four overlapping circles representing four separate but interdependent "systems." One he labels "teaching" and defines it as the behavior of the teacher - teaching is what the teacher does. A second, labeled "learning" is the phenomena or behavior that is noted in the performance of the student-learning is what the student does. A third, "instruction," is the teaching-learning system - the action context within which formal teaching and learning behaviors take place - the pupil-teacher interaction situation. The final circle represents the "curriculum," the plan for action - those planning endeavors that take place prior to instruction. In the model, "each circle shares some space with each other circle, some space with two other circles, and one space with all other circles. The small shadowed spot in the center represents that point of congruence where curriculum goals are operative in the instructional setting through the agency of effective teaching activity as evidenced by the changed behavior or learning of the students" (p. 5).
If we use this model and substitute for "Curriculum", The Strategic Plan, or The Springfield College Plan for Institutional Diversity and Pluralism (to be developed!) or even The Humanies Philosophy, we have at least one view of what it takes to "operationalize" a plan. The mere existence of a plan does not mean it will automatically become operative. There have to be carefully planned procedures for implementation, and an arena in which the implementation will take place. As teachers we talk about our delivery system, or those methodologies by which we bring our students in contact with the discipline. Our arenas are the classrooms, the gymnasia, the laboratories and the playing fields.
The Curricular Affairs section of the May 1988 Draft of the Springfield College Strategic Plan, lists as an Issue: to Ensure High-Quality Academic Programs. The Strategy to address the issue is to periodically review and evaluate the academic offerings. One of the items under the Plan to implement the Strategy is to "Assess the students to ensure that the Humanics philosophy is being transmitted to them" (p. 9). If we look back to our model, may I suggest that we are missing a few steps; that we are making some huge assumptions about learning.
First of all, I do not believe that the identification of a philosophy is a "plan for action." The statement that appears in the College Bulletin, and the Institutional Mission statement in the Strategic Plan are not "plans for action." They are, however, the foundation upon which an action plan can be developed. If we are really serious about the Humanics Philosophy being transmitted to our students, we MUST develop a plan to do this. A curricular plan for action would have a philosophy (we have that!) goals, scope (content) and sequence. It would have teaching, instruction, find learning systems. Even if we plugged the Humanics Philosophy, as is, into the curriculum circle and Students into the learning circle, leaving the other two circles blank makes area IX the only possible area of interaction, and that is the student on his or her own with the philosophy.
How can we as educators seriously expect our students to "learn" about our Humanics Philosophy in the absence of teachers and instruction! Maybe "humanics" is transmitted, like a disease! Maybe its "caught" not "taught!" Then again, maybe it's like what I think Dr. Olds was referring to at the President's presentation at the Centennial, "Someone described the climate of Springfield, in those days, as like London fog. You can't penetrate it but if you stay in it long enough you get soaked" (Congdon, 1986, p. 36).
Rather them making the assumption that our students assimilate the Humanics Philosophy as concommitant learning in the course of their education, or that at the end of four years it has finally "soaked in", I suggest we develop a curricular plan for action to increase the chance for it to become operative within our students and within our institution as a whole. The implementation procedures for our Humanics Philosophy need not be limited to the formal instructional arena. However, there MUST be an implementation plan with clearly outlined procedures for each arena, be it classroom, gymnasium, dormitory, or freshmen orientation.
Although I have "put it to us" to a degree in this address, I am very encouraged by discussion and work that has gone on over the summer. It is obvious we have awareness, concern and a felt need for change at two crucially important levels; at the Presidential level, and at the Faculty level. I use the term "levels" not in an attempt to denote a "we - they" situation, but rather as a way to look at traditional perspectives of a change process. The "power" approach to change is a top - down, edict from above process. In most educational institutions, but especially in institutions of higher education, this approach is usually met by faculty with considerable resistance or, a current faculty reaction is total apathy. The second typical charge process is termed the "persuasive," or bottom - up approach that, lacking administrative support is doomed to die a natural death.
We appear to be in a not so typical situation where the President and the Faculty are on the same wave-length, and at the same time! Last spring the President established four Task Forces: The College and the Neighborhood, The College and Security, The College and the Quality of Student Life, and The College and Cultural Diversity. They were given the charge to focus on each area of concern so that they could come together in a Fall Semester College Symposium on the Quality of Life. Three of these Task Forces have been very active over the summer identifying issues and developing potential action responses. Because students are an important part of these groups and have not been available to meet during the summer, no firm recommendations have been made at this time. The minutes of the meetings that have been held give ample evidence of sincere dialogue addressing issues of utmost concern for this institution.
Last spring at the direction of the Faculty Senate I, as outgoing President, appointed an Ad Hoc Senate Forum Committee to investigate the state of Springfield College with respect to issues of social justice, racism, sexism, alcohol abuse, oppression, and discrimination. You have been given the committee's preliminary report to the Senate and it served as a focus of discussion at our morning session. In addition to planning the program for Faculty Institute, this group assisted with programming for New Student Orientation and the Residence Directors Training Program to help focus attention on the issues of oppression and discrimination. John Wilson developed a workshop on "Valuing Diversity" which has been a part of both of these programs this week.
As the "old grande dame" around here, I have two charges for all you "young whippersnappers" (including the President) in the formal "Task Forces" process of addressing these issues: 1.) do not let egos, petty power plays or absolutely anything else get in the way of us all coming together as a true "community" to address the issues that we have been discussing today; and, 2.) most importantly, bring our discussions to closure with the development of a written plan or plans that include written Springfield College Policies and Procedures regarding these issues. I mentioned earlier The Springfield College Plan for Institutional Diversity and Pluralism. This was not a tongue-in-cheek statement. We must develop this.
At least three institutions of higher education in the local area have operative plans for addressing the issues of diversity, racism, and acts of intolerance. An article about the Smith College affirmative action plan which is called the Smith Design for Institutional Diversity appeared in the August 6, 1989 Sunday Republican Emphasis Section. The author of the article stated the plan "is getting mixed reviews after nearly a year in effect, but even its critics Scly its better them nothing" (p. B-l).
The Board of Governors for Higher Education in the state of Connecticut has a written document entitled "Strategic Plan to Ensure Racial and Ethnic Diversity" which has been in operation for four years. A recommendation to approve the "Policy Regarding Acts of Intolerance in Connecticut Higher Education was before the Board in July. The Massachusetts Board of Regents of Higher Education has in draft form a "Policy Against Racism." Both sets of guidelines are to assist the colleges and universities within the respective systems develop specific institutional plans and policies.
Springfield College from its inception has had varying degrees of success while "flying by the seat of its pants." I can't even say "I've never worked at a place with so few written policies" - - because, with the exception of three years in the public schools, I've always worked here! It's time we put our convictions in writing. It's time we hold ourselves accountable for meeting deadlines for specific written plans with goals for improving diversity. It's time we eliminate racism; sexism; homophobia; religious intolerance; and acts of violence, hatred, oppression, and discrimination. It's time we implement our Humanics Philosophy.
We need to develop the written Affirmative Action Plum mentioned previously, but in the meantime we must adhere to our newly re-written Hiring Guidelines. We must not only make an effort to hire qualified minorities, but do it! In the lag time while we are in the process of developing policies and plans, take it upon yourself as a faculty member, staff member, or member of the administration to seek out and give to your Department Chairs, or immediate supervisors, the names of contacts you know who could give leads on qualified minority candidates. Don't wait for the mandate! Each of us making contact with appropriate other persons in the hiring process could effectively increase the diversity on this campus. Besides, we would be "doing humanics!"
Our coaches will tell you "business as usual" in the recruiting game does not work today. When I began to coach here, my teams were made up of the students who chose to come here. Most were excellent three sport athletes who wanted to teach physical education. Because we were one of the first institutions in our major recruiting area to have women's teams we had little competition for the top student athlete. As U Mass, Bridgewater, Southern Connecticut, and U Conn began to develop programs, the quality student athlete in our recruiting circle had viable college alternatives. We could no longer just sit back and expect them to come to us.
In some ways today, we are both naive and arrogant to think we can sit back today and send our position openings to the Chronicle and the NCAA News and find hundreds of applicants, a large percentage of whom would be minorities, flocking to our doors. Twenty years ago people in physical education jumped at the chance to become a faculty member and coach at Springfield College. Because of the fragmentation in the discipline and the number of quality programs in addition to our own, that is not the case today. It is especially not true for women and minorities. What does the current makeup of our coaching staff say to white women and to men and women of color? While fully acknowledging the progress made by this administration in hiring white women, what does the composition of the faculty, administration, staff, and student body say to other minorities? I think it says, "my existence is not valued here. "
If we truly believe in the Humanics Philosophy, let us define it and operationalize it by providing instructional opportunities in both our curricular and co-curricular settings. If we truly value the beliefs and ideals inherent in that philosophy, let us clarify them and use them to guide our decision making processes for developing policy, for hiring personnel, for recruiting and admitting students, and for developing curriculum.
In closing I would like to use two quotes that summarize much of what I have tried to say this afternoon. The first is taken from the Policy Regarding Acts of Intolerance in Connecticut Colleges and Universities.
"The importance of pluralism is a basic tenet of modern higher education. In the academic community, when individuals from diverse groups come together with shared purposes, all are enriched. It is not enough, however, to open the doors of the campus. Those who enter must encounter a climate of acceptance, one characterized by justice and fairness. In places of learning, people of different races, religions, and ethnic or cultural origins are to be welcomed in ways that value their participation and contributions. Students, faculty, staff, (and I would add administration) create a marketplace of ideas on college campuses by bringing multiple perspectives to a single enterprise. This diversity is at the heart of the free pursuit of knowledge."
The second quote is from The New Agenda of Women for Higher Education.
"As we strive for a new vision for our institutions, we seek value-added change where we all learn to value more them one world view. Every institution in higher education must enhance the worth of each person by recognizing his or her talents, history, and cultural heritage, and by encouraging a celebration of diversity born out of fuller knowledge of the world" (p. 3).
The preparation and presention of this address has been a difficult and an exciting and enlightening experience for me as an individual. Accepting the opportunity was a good decision for me. In the days ahead, each of us will have the opportunity to experience difficulty, excitement and enlightenment while helping to chart the course for the Springfield of the future. The task for each of us is the ever present challenge in all of education, that of seizing the opportunity and thereby making a difference in our own lives and in the lives of others.
The collective result of each individual's action will be an institutional directive for change. We are the institution that is Springfield College. The buildings, the acreage does not a College make! The students, the faculty, the staff, the physical plant personnel, the administration, the trustees, - the people - are Springfield College. Therefore, what we do is what Springfield College stands for. We as an institution must not only have a written Humanics Philosophy, but must demonstrate by our actions that we are "doing humanics." Then and only then, will Humanics or the Humanics Philosophy be the real meaning of Springfield College.
There is a bright side somewhere
There is justice somewhere
There is freedom somewhere and we must keep on until we find it!
(Words from the Traditional Spiritual "Bright Side"
sung by Jane Sapp at the 1989 Faculty Institute)
REFERENCES
Arsenian, Seth, Editor (1969). The humanics philosophy of Springfield college. Springfield, MA: Springfield College
Congdon, Paul U., Editor (1978). Humanics: inside out in writing. Springfield, MA: Springfield College.
Congdon, Paul U., Editor (1984). Trying to do humanics. Springfield, MA: Springfield College.
Congdon, Paul U., Editor (1986). Humanics at the centennial: still trying. Springfield, MA: Springfield College.
Connecticut Board of Governors for Higher Education. (June 21, 1989). Staff report: Administrative committee, Item: Policy regarding acts of intolerance at Connecticut colleges and universities.
Geis, F. L., Carter, M. R., and Butler, D.J. (1982). Seeing and evaluating people. Newark: University of Delaware.
MacDonald, James B. & Leeper, Robert R. (1965). Theories of instruction. Washington, D.C.: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Massachusetts Board of Regents. (April 14, 1989). Draft: Policy against racism. Boston: Department of Higher Education.
Springfield College Undergraduate Bulletin. (1989-90).
Springfield College Strategic Plan. (May 1988 Draft).
Springfield Sunday Republican. (August 6, 1989).
The New Agenda of Woman for Higher Education. (1987). Washington, D.C.: Office of Women in Higher Education, American Council on Education.

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Operationalizing Humanics Philosophy
The Keystone
for a Diverse and Pluralistic Springfield College
Dr. Diane L. Potter
Distinguished Springfield College Professor of Humanics
September 1, 1989
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
President Falcone, distinguished colleagues, I would ask the former Humanics Professors in the audience to stand as I read your names. I would like to thank Marty Anisman for the appointment to this most honored position. At the time he asked me to accept the appointment, I protested - not a lot - but honestly because I did not perceive myself as appropriate for this role. I do not perceive myself as a scholar and I may prove that an accurate perception today. I don't think of myself as distinguished - old maybe - tired sometimes - but distinguished - gray hair not withstanding - no! Perceptions are an important focus of much of what I will have to say later in this presentation. They are personal, and therefore tend to be as different as the people perceiving. I do thank you Marty because as the events of last spring unfolded and I began to think of the task of developing this talk, my perception was that we as an institution have come to a fork in the road. We may have come upon this decision making point a little late compared with some other institutions of higher education. Nevertheless, our time has come to chart a course that may well be as important as any previous set of decisions made at this institution. I have found it challenging, frightening, and invigorating to deal with the issues that have brought us to this point. I do not presume to have the answer as to which path to take. For sure, we as a college community must deal with the issues and make some wise decisions in the months ahead in order to educate and help each of us and our students prepare to serve all humankind.
Marty, I for one congratulate you on your new position, but I am sorry you will not be here to help chart the course by which Springfield will move into the 21st century. Please know, you have made a significant difference for many of us these past three years and it will be something we will have to build on in the months and years ahead.
INTRODUCTION OF THE LECTURE
We have had a busy and, at least for me, stimulating day already. When the Senate Forum Committee spoke with me early in the summer about some of their deliberations and their plans for Faculty Institute and asked if I could tie my presentation into this focus, I was excited at the prospect. The fork in the road I alluded to earlier is the decision this Institution must make about becoming a more diverse institution of higher education and operationalizing our Humanics Philosophy as we strive to achieve a pluralistic campus.
Under the current administration, we have made significant strides in both seeking applications, and then hiring qualified white women for administrative and faculty positions. With all due respect to the School of Human Services, the following data does not include their students, faculty or administration. The problems of diversity do not lie with their numbers, nor are their numbers the answer to the problems we have been discussing today and about which I am going to speak. Unfortunately the perception of some people is that the addition of the School of Human Services is a "quick fix" to at least the numbers game of diversity of students, faculty, and administration. I cannot accept that view because at the present time, with very few exceptions, "the twain do not meet." (I sincerely hope the original of that saying - the twain shall never meet is not true) At the present time, the benefits accruing from the addition of The School; a diverse student body, faculty, and administration are not real because there is yet to be integration of Springfield College and The School of Human Services into one educational institution. When this integration does occur, the statistical picture should be somewhat different.
In the meantime -- Of the total number of administrators and faculty, 58% of administrators are women and 34% of the faculty are women (National figure1985 faculty = 27.5%). Our past and current record relative to hiring men and women of color in those aforementioned positions is atrocious. People of color are for the most part non-existent in our faculty and administration. Of the faculty teaching our traditional undergraduate students, 1 woman and 4 men are minorities, or 4.1% of that faculty group. Among those five people, there is no black faculty member. Minorities make up 6.8% of the administrative staff of 88 people. Our student body continues to be predominantly white (95.5% as of May 1988). The fact that women are the majority in our undergraduate enrollment must cause some of the "old guard" considerable pain! The International Academy and our strong contingent of international students at the graduate level are proof of our international outreach. However, what is our record of recruiting and enrolling cultural minorities who are part of our American society, such as Asians, naturalized citizens, first generation "Americans" of various ethnic backgrounds? Who is educating the "whole person" to go and work "in service" with these populations in our country as well as in the world!
In addition to the lack of appropriate racial diversity in our college community, racism, sexism, intolerance of diverse perspectives on religion, sexual preference, and disability are not strangers to Springfield College. Diversity is both visible and invisible. Race is visible, racism is invisible until actions make the attitude visible. Pluralism is a step beyond diversity. Diversity speaks to access, admittance; pluralism, on the other hand, has to do with values. We are all diverse - we all have cultural heritages. Pluralism speaks to valuing that diversity. Our Black, Hispanic, and International Asian students make us at least to some degree a racially diverse campus. The acts of violence against these and other students by their Springfield College peers is evidence that we do not have a pluralistic view toward that racial diversity. The value of decency - how we treat people - is not a value held by all in this campus community. Students ridiculing the accent of a foreign born faculty member is evidence of intolerance, lack of decency; even though the hiring of the faculty member spoke to increasing diversity.
After women are hired, or admitted as students, are they valued on an equal basis with men or are the sex role stereotypes relative to objectivity, rationality, independence, ambition, and responsibility operative? When Potter raises her voice in a heated Faculty Senate debate over the parking problems on campus, is she viewed as being emotional, irrational, aggressive, "having her period"; while Cohen is -- concerned, making his point, being objective?
Are the people of color that we do have on campus valued on an equal basis with those who are white? Do we "see" a difference? As a faculty member walking into one of your classes on Wednesday, you will visibly "see" the Black, Asian or Hispanic student seated in the class. But, will that visible difference translate to the invisible differences that are your perceptions of - or attitudes about -- these students. You will visibly "see" men and women in your class. Will you expect your women students to do better in your class because you perceive them as being "smarter"? Will your expectations for any of the students in your class be different based on their sex, race, or ethnicity? In my softball skills classes, do I expect the "boys" to be able to throw a ball well; while I accept, even take for granted, lack of throwing ability on the part of the "girls".
If we are truly working toward pluralism in our value system - or view of people - we will see the differences, but work hard to accept those differences find not allow different expectations based solely on sex, race or ethnicity. Once we know our students, we nobly have different expectations of them based on their current level of experience and background, but not because one is a woman, one is a Black or another is an Italian. Will I "see" the visible differences? Yes, I will. Will I act on the stereotypes inherent in the differences I see? Hopefully not as much as I used to. Why? Because at least now I have some awareness and that is the first step in making changes in behavior. We are not "bad people" because we have the perceptions we have. We ignorant in the true sense of that word; we lack knowledge and experience, we are unaware. The perception of many of our students, faculty, administrators and staff is that we do not have problems with racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, visible and invisible differences of diversity and pluralism. U Mass does, Smith does, but we have the Humanics Philosophy -- we're O.K.-- Or are we?
Geis, Carter, and Butler in "Seeing and Evaluating People", a summary of scientific research, quote studies by Nauta 1971 and Smith & Miller, 1983 "All perception is interpretation. When we see a person or performance, our conscious experience is that we are seeing what is actually there. But in fact, we are seeing what is there as it is organized and interpreted by our previous knowledge....All perception is an approximation of reality. All evidence is more or less ambiguous." They go on later in a more specific application to say "...We all developed our previous experience about what reality is in a society in which traditional sex stereotypes were assumed as accurate" (pp. 1-3). Although not specified in the quote just used, the same inference regarding stereotypes could be made to race (Jimmy the Greek hear this!) ethnicity, disabled people, gays, lesbians, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Charismatics.
As a college community, how do we develop at least a consensus view of a diverse and pluralistic Springfield College, an institution free of discrimination and oppression? "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!" "Seeing is believing." What is the reality we seek? How much cultural diversity is appropriate for this institution? Each of us brings his or her own view of reality to the discussion. What can we bring as fact to this discussion?
Our mission statement says the College is committed to its century-old philosophy known as Humanics, which emphasizes the development of the total person in spirit, mind and body for service to others. Who are the "others " referred to in the statement? David Hamburg states in his article "Disadvantaged Minority Education: Free at Last?" "Minorities constitute the majority of school enrollments in twenty-three of the twenty-five largest cities in the nation. By the year 2000, fifty-three major cities will have a majority of minorities" (p. 4). The Census Bureau Figures for 1986 (the latest available) show that 83% of the 18-24 year old population are White, 13.8% are Black, and 9.5% are Hispanic. Thus the minority college age population is 23.3%. Are we preparing a significant number of service oriented people to work with these populations? Does our minority enrollment figure of 4.5% for 1988 compare favorably with any of these data regardless of the year? Do we have a significant number of minority faculty to serve as role models for our minority students? Where are the Jesse Parks' and the Maddie Edwards' serving as a role model for all of us regardless of race? Are we meeting our stated objective of educating our students for service to all humankind?
In this introduction, I have tried to identify two issues, diversity and pluralism which I feel Springfield College (WE) must address in the immediate future. Having given you my perception of where we are, I will, in the time remaining, attempt to give you Potter s opinion (no more, no less) on some ways in which we can address these issues. In the process, I hope to identify what "Humanics" has to do with all this! First a little history!
Brief Historical Perspective of "Humanics"
Having read the other lectures and knowing the wonderful and thorough job previous Distinguished Springfield Professors of Humanics have done discussing Humanics including the explanation of the first use of the term here at Springfield, I had decided not to include anything on the historical use of the term. Then I realized many in the audience today are "new" to Springfield College and unless you did a lot of homework before accepting your new position, you won't have a clue about the basis for today's presentation. Secondly, any assumption on my part that all returning (not "old") colleagues in the audience today have, one - either read all these lectures or, two - remember everything they heard while listening to each one for the first time, is probably an erroneous assumption.
This, as background for my talk about Humanics today, a very brief history lesson is in order. Springfield College was founded as The International Young Men's Christian Association Training School. The curriculum had what we would call today two professional preparation programs; one to train Y.M.C.A. secretaries (the "Y" leadership); and two, to train the physical directors (the teachers of the programs in the "Y"). In addition to the training provided in these two professional courses of study, the leadership of the institution determined that all students needed a better general education foundation than they were getting at the time. A general course (All College Requirements!) consisting of two major areas 1, the study of man, and 2, cultural study was developed. The term Humanics was coined by Dr. Dogget and Professor Burr in 1905 to describe the "unique" curriculum of the College focusing on the study of Man in his wholeness and also to identify the degrees which would be conferred, the Bachelor and Master of Humanics degrees.
As a student at Springfield College in the 50's, I never heard the word 'humanics'' used to describe the curriculum, nor was it associated with any degree. As a matter of fact, I never heard the term, period.
Until Dr. Glenn Olds, the 8th President of Springfield College, revived the concept of humanics and established the Distinguished Springfield Professor of Humanics position in the mid-60's, the "triangle", - spirit, mind and body was the emblem of choice and the words used to describe the "Springfield" person. We didn't talk about a philosophy. We talked about a person exemplifying the "Springfield ideal", being a ''triangle'' or having it firmly emblazoned on one's forehead. To this day, when I meet some colleagues (who also are recipients of one or more degrees from here) at professional conferences, the first thing they do is "shine up" the triangle!
I make these comments in the context of a discussion of history because I really think "being a triangle", having the "Springfield spirit", exemplifying the "Springfield ideal", and having the "Humanics philosophy" or "doing Humanics" are basically all one ad the same thing. They are all symbols used to represent what we as an institution stand for and what we do. Words, emblems, philosophical constructs, nouns, adjectives - What's the difference? For the sake of an intellectual discussion, one could present arguments that there are indeed differences. To me -- today--what does matter is whether we do what we say we stand for. Rhetoric (used here as the dictionary definition "artificial eloquence") about the Humanics Philosophy is no substitute for action.
A Springfield education has always focused on spirit, mind and body. In the not-too-far-distant past this was a holistic view of man, (man being not in the generic sense.) The early "Y" secretaries and physical directors were all men. (I wonder if the current situation is much different!) Women were admitted (had access) on an basis in the first half century or so of Springfield's history. Dr. Arsenian, in his final Humanics Lecture, speaking of his early days as a faculty member in the late 30's, recalled President Best saying "We close the doors on them, but they enter from the windows." (Congdon, 1978, p. 47) Springfield College was a men's school until 1951 when it officially became coeducational.
Our view for the future must truly be a holistic view of humankind. There is an excellent statement in the current Springfield College Bulletin. It reads, "The emphasis at Springfield College is on our Humanics Philosophy, the education of the total person -- the spirit, the mind, the body -- with motivation of service to humanity that is international, intercultural, interracial and interreligious" (p.4). It states what we stand for, describes what we do, gives some direction as to the expectations we have for our students. The important words, the symbols are there - some from the past - spirit, mind, body, service; some new - person not man, - international, intercultural, interracial, interreligious to emphasize service to all humanity. It has the makings of a good statement of educational philosophy. As with most philosophical statements, it doesn't tell us how to do these things. Yet, it does give direction for some goal statements, for some "how to do it" kinds of things. In addition, because it says we do these things, it implies that in fact we do do them! Yes, the problem with having a philosophy is the expectation that we must live up to it. So much for history!!
THE PLACE OF A PHILOSOPHY
I do not plan to redefine Humanics. I don t think the "wheel" needs to be reinvented. However, I am going to talk about the Humanics Philosophy rather than Humanics, the noun. Just as the wheel was invented for utilitarian purposes by "what's-his-name" - you know the person who got sick of carrying the week's groceries back to the cave in armfuls, I believe a "philosophy" is for use.
I do not intend to intellectualize about philosophy. Rather, I would like to discuss the Humanics Philosophy, in the context of an educational philosophy. As such, it must affect not only the stated mission of this institution, but in fact everything we do, which is, at this point in time, of great importance.
A philosophy in this context is important to me as a teacher of curriculum development because of the place it has in the decision-making process. The curricular decision-making process includes the development of goals (what we want our students to achieve), scope (the content selected to provide our students with the opportunity to achieve the goals), and sequence ( the order of presenting the content). The philosophy is the foundation upon which everything is built and from whence everything comes. In a program it guides our curricula decision making; in an institution it guides our institutional decision making and is the foundation for what we do.
Goals of a program (or institution) emanate from the philosophy. The generalized beliefs, ideals, and values expressed in a philosophy must be put into specific terms (preferably stated as outcomes) so that one has a sense of what one has to do to achieve them. Goals are action statements that enable one to operationalize a philosophy.
Are there specific, inherent values in our Humanics Philosophy? If so, is it important that our students acquire them? If so, where do they have the opportunity to learn them? Is there a body of knowledge that every "Springfield student" should possess (All College Requirements)? If so, upon what do we make decisions about content? Is the "core" the traditional Arts and Sciences of Math, English, History (Western only), Sociology, etc. What differentiates a "Springfield" student from any other undergraduate who is being liberally educated? Might not an examination of our stated mission give some direction as to what should be included as content in the general education area? What about service? What about Humanics? Are there certain skills, attributes, and abilities that all Springfield students should acquire regardlesss of the "human helping service area" the student plans to enter? How do we prepare our students to go out and "serve" humankind?
Do our currently proposed All College Requirements provide the opportunity for our students to learn About Humanics, to become educated in the Humanics Philosophy? Is it a part of the "Springfield education" or is it a myth? In the curriculum decision masking process, selection of content is based on the goals of the program. In a discipline such as physical education, we select content so that students can experience activities that will enable them to achieve the stated program goals. If the development of fitness is a program goal, and the development of cardio-vascular fitness is a schooling level goal for middle school students, then selection of an activity such as jogging is appropriate. Selecting archery to provide an opportunity for students to achieve cardio-vascular fitness "does not compute!" Having archery in the program because we have the equipment, because Meyer and Schwarz say it is an appropriate activity for junior high, and it has always been in the program (plus I can teach it) are not ''goal oriented" reasons for the selection of that activity. That kind of curricular decision-making has nothing to do with putting an educational philosophy into operation.
If our philosophy refers to our students having a service motivation that is international, intercultural, interracial, and interreligious, are we assuming they are going to learn that from Western Civ. when over one-half of the worlds population is "Non-Western?" Where in our education do we provide our students with an opportunity to learn to be tolerant of other's views, to care for one another, to be understanding of one another, to love one another? What would motivate one more to enter a human helping profession than love of humanity? That doesn't mean I have to like everybody all the time, but I do have to value their existence.
Dr. Vanderbeck talked about "doing" Humanics. I am proposing that we must do a better job of doing Humanics and of operationalizing our Humanics Philosophy than we are currently doing. I am certainly not the first Humanics Professor nor writer about Humanics to call the troops to action or to describe examples of Humanics in action. While Dr. Vanderbeck gave some examples of Humanics in action, Drs. Parr, Silvia, Ross, and Dean Merriam each had suggestions for action. Dean Merriam's report on one of the Faculty Dinner- Discussions in February, 1959 included a suggestion from Dick Havel --"the need to clarify the concept of Humanics; and having become clear, to use Humanics as a tool for evaluating the curriculum;..." (Congdon, 1984, p. 133). There are a few in the room today who probably remember those discussions and know whether Havel's suggestion was ever implemented. Even if it was, curriculum development is an ongoing process and surely thirty years later it's time to take another look! Thus, I propose that we not only operationalize "Spirit, Mind and Body'' and our Humanics Philosophy, but that we do it in our curriculum, our hiring practices and in the recruitment of our student body. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, just make a commitment to a task that needs doing. Some poor soul reviewing these lectures in the year 2000 preparing for the 27th Humanics Lecture would probably ascertain that Van, others, and I were talking about one and the same thing!! What's an educational philosophy for? Use! It tells us not only what we stand for, what makes us unique; it demands that we make it real.
THE ACTION PHASE
Action usually involves change and for many people change is threatening. Change means things will be different, change means that I have to be different. I don't want to be different; I like me; I'm comfortable just the way I am.
Becoming a more diverse ad pluralistic college community is going to mean change. I reaffirm the contentions made this morning that at present we are not sufficiently diverse; and, more importantly, we are not pluralistic in our attitudes and values. We need a plan for change - heaven forbid another plan! For the new members in the audience, I must explain that for members of this faculty and administration Task Forces for Long Range Plans, or Strategic Plans are a way of life around here!
Having been on the faculty almost thirty years, I personally have been through three of these "Long Range" planning processes. They have all been participatory in nature, we as faculty and administrators have held the opportunity for input. The current draft of The Strategic Plan is in a state the others never got to, a set of broadly defined goals expanded in some cases into specific objectives. The actual procedures for attainment of the goals are not complete yet, but the plan to date is the beginning of a "written plan for action."
I would use an Educational Model for Instruction by James B. Macdonald (Macdonald & Leeper, 1965) as an analogy. Macdonald s model is made up of four overlapping circles representing four separate but interdependent "systems." One he labels "teaching" and defines it as the behavior of the teacher - teaching is what the teacher does. A second, labeled "learning" is the phenomena or behavior that is noted in the performance of the student-learning is what the student does. A third, "instruction," is the teaching-learning system - the action context within which formal teaching and learning behaviors take place - the pupil-teacher interaction situation. The final circle represents the "curriculum," the plan for action - those planning endeavors that take place prior to instruction. In the model, "each circle shares some space with each other circle, some space with two other circles, and one space with all other circles. The small shadowed spot in the center represents that point of congruence where curriculum goals are operative in the instructional setting through the agency of effective teaching activity as evidenced by the changed behavior or learning of the students" (p. 5).
If we use this model and substitute for "Curriculum", The Strategic Plan, or The Springfield College Plan for Institutional Diversity and Pluralism (to be developed!) or even The Humanies Philosophy, we have at least one view of what it takes to "operationalize" a plan. The mere existence of a plan does not mean it will automatically become operative. There have to be carefully planned procedures for implementation, and an arena in which the implementation will take place. As teachers we talk about our delivery system, or those methodologies by which we bring our students in contact with the discipline. Our arenas are the classrooms, the gymnasia, the laboratories and the playing fields.
The Curricular Affairs section of the May 1988 Draft of the Springfield College Strategic Plan, lists as an Issue: to Ensure High-Quality Academic Programs. The Strategy to address the issue is to periodically review and evaluate the academic offerings. One of the items under the Plan to implement the Strategy is to "Assess the students to ensure that the Humanics philosophy is being transmitted to them" (p. 9). If we look back to our model, may I suggest that we are missing a few steps; that we are making some huge assumptions about learning.
First of all, I do not believe that the identification of a philosophy is a "plan for action." The statement that appears in the College Bulletin, and the Institutional Mission statement in the Strategic Plan are not "plans for action." They are, however, the foundation upon which an action plan can be developed. If we are really serious about the Humanics Philosophy being transmitted to our students, we MUST develop a plan to do this. A curricular plan for action would have a philosophy (we have that!) goals, scope (content) and sequence. It would have teaching, instruction, find learning systems. Even if we plugged the Humanics Philosophy, as is, into the curriculum circle and Students into the learning circle, leaving the other two circles blank makes area IX the only possible area of interaction, and that is the student on his or her own with the philosophy.
How can we as educators seriously expect our students to "learn" about our Humanics Philosophy in the absence of teachers and instruction! Maybe "humanics" is transmitted, like a disease! Maybe its "caught" not "taught!" Then again, maybe it's like what I think Dr. Olds was referring to at the President's presentation at the Centennial, "Someone described the climate of Springfield, in those days, as like London fog. You can't penetrate it but if you stay in it long enough you get soaked" (Congdon, 1986, p. 36).
Rather them making the assumption that our students assimilate the Humanics Philosophy as concommitant learning in the course of their education, or that at the end of four years it has finally "soaked in", I suggest we develop a curricular plan for action to increase the chance for it to become operative within our students and within our institution as a whole. The implementation procedures for our Humanics Philosophy need not be limited to the formal instructional arena. However, there MUST be an implementation plan with clearly outlined procedures for each arena, be it classroom, gymnasium, dormitory, or freshmen orientation.
Although I have "put it to us" to a degree in this address, I am very encouraged by discussion and work that has gone on over the summer. It is obvious we have awareness, concern and a felt need for change at two crucially important levels; at the Presidential level, and at the Faculty level. I use the term "levels" not in an attempt to denote a "we - they" situation, but rather as a way to look at traditional perspectives of a change process. The "power" approach to change is a top - down, edict from above process. In most educational institutions, but especially in institutions of higher education, this approach is usually met by faculty with considerable resistance or, a current faculty reaction is total apathy. The second typical charge process is termed the "persuasive," or bottom - up approach that, lacking administrative support is doomed to die a natural death.
We appear to be in a not so typical situation where the President and the Faculty are on the same wave-length, and at the same time! Last spring the President established four Task Forces: The College and the Neighborhood, The College and Security, The College and the Quality of Student Life, and The College and Cultural Diversity. They were given the charge to focus on each area of concern so that they could come together in a Fall Semester College Symposium on the Quality of Life. Three of these Task Forces have been very active over the summer identifying issues and developing potential action responses. Because students are an important part of these groups and have not been available to meet during the summer, no firm recommendations have been made at this time. The minutes of the meetings that have been held give ample evidence of sincere dialogue addressing issues of utmost concern for this institution.
Last spring at the direction of the Faculty Senate I, as outgoing President, appointed an Ad Hoc Senate Forum Committee to investigate the state of Springfield College with respect to issues of social justice, racism, sexism, alcohol abuse, oppression, and discrimination. You have been given the committee's preliminary report to the Senate and it served as a focus of discussion at our morning session. In addition to planning the program for Faculty Institute, this group assisted with programming for New Student Orientation and the Residence Directors Training Program to help focus attention on the issues of oppression and discrimination. John Wilson developed a workshop on "Valuing Diversity" which has been a part of both of these programs this week.
As the "old grande dame" around here, I have two charges for all you "young whippersnappers" (including the President) in the formal "Task Forces" process of addressing these issues: 1.) do not let egos, petty power plays or absolutely anything else get in the way of us all coming together as a true "community" to address the issues that we have been discussing today; and, 2.) most importantly, bring our discussions to closure with the development of a written plan or plans that include written Springfield College Policies and Procedures regarding these issues. I mentioned earlier The Springfield College Plan for Institutional Diversity and Pluralism. This was not a tongue-in-cheek statement. We must develop this.
At least three institutions of higher education in the local area have operative plans for addressing the issues of diversity, racism, and acts of intolerance. An article about the Smith College affirmative action plan which is called the Smith Design for Institutional Diversity appeared in the August 6, 1989 Sunday Republican Emphasis Section. The author of the article stated the plan "is getting mixed reviews after nearly a year in effect, but even its critics Scly its better them nothing" (p. B-l).
The Board of Governors for Higher Education in the state of Connecticut has a written document entitled "Strategic Plan to Ensure Racial and Ethnic Diversity" which has been in operation for four years. A recommendation to approve the "Policy Regarding Acts of Intolerance in Connecticut Higher Education was before the Board in July. The Massachusetts Board of Regents of Higher Education has in draft form a "Policy Against Racism." Both sets of guidelines are to assist the colleges and universities within the respective systems develop specific institutional plans and policies.
Springfield College from its inception has had varying degrees of success while "flying by the seat of its pants." I can't even say "I've never worked at a place with so few written policies" - - because, with the exception of three years in the public schools, I've always worked here! It's time we put our convictions in writing. It's time we hold ourselves accountable for meeting deadlines for specific written plans with goals for improving diversity. It's time we eliminate racism; sexism; homophobia; religious intolerance; and acts of violence, hatred, oppression, and discrimination. It's time we implement our Humanics Philosophy.
We need to develop the written Affirmative Action Plum mentioned previously, but in the meantime we must adhere to our newly re-written Hiring Guidelines. We must not only make an effort to hire qualified minorities, but do it! In the lag time while we are in the process of developing policies and plans, take it upon yourself as a faculty member, staff member, or member of the administration to seek out and give to your Department Chairs, or immediate supervisors, the names of contacts you know who could give leads on qualified minority candidates. Don't wait for the mandate! Each of us making contact with appropriate other persons in the hiring process could effectively increase the diversity on this campus. Besides, we would be "doing humanics!"
Our coaches will tell you "business as usual" in the recruiting game does not work today. When I began to coach here, my teams were made up of the students who chose to come here. Most were excellent three sport athletes who wanted to teach physical education. Because we were one of the first institutions in our major recruiting area to have women's teams we had little competition for the top student athlete. As U Mass, Bridgewater, Southern Connecticut, and U Conn began to develop programs, the quality student athlete in our recruiting circle had viable college alternatives. We could no longer just sit back and expect them to come to us.
In some ways today, we are both naive and arrogant to think we can sit back today and send our position openings to the Chronicle and the NCAA News and find hundreds of applicants, a large percentage of whom would be minorities, flocking to our doors. Twenty years ago people in physical education jumped at the chance to become a faculty member and coach at Springfield College. Because of the fragmentation in the discipline and the number of quality programs in addition to our own, that is not the case today. It is especially not true for women and minorities. What does the current makeup of our coaching staff say to white women and to men and women of color? While fully acknowledging the progress made by this administration in hiring white women, what does the composition of the faculty, administration, staff, and student body say to other minorities? I think it says, "my existence is not valued here. "
If we truly believe in the Humanics Philosophy, let us define it and operationalize it by providing instructional opportunities in both our curricular and co-curricular settings. If we truly value the beliefs and ideals inherent in that philosophy, let us clarify them and use them to guide our decision making processes for developing policy, for hiring personnel, for recruiting and admitting students, and for developing curriculum.
In closing I would like to use two quotes that summarize much of what I have tried to say this afternoon. The first is taken from the Policy Regarding Acts of Intolerance in Connecticut Colleges and Universities.
"The importance of pluralism is a basic tenet of modern higher education. In the academic community, when individuals from diverse groups come together with shared purposes, all are enriched. It is not enough, however, to open the doors of the campus. Those who enter must encounter a climate of acceptance, one characterized by justice and fairness. In places of learning, people of different races, religions, and ethnic or cultural origins are to be welcomed in ways that value their participation and contributions. Students, faculty, staff, (and I would add administration) create a marketplace of ideas on college campuses by bringing multiple perspectives to a single enterprise. This diversity is at the heart of the free pursuit of knowledge."
The second quote is from The New Agenda of Women for Higher Education.
"As we strive for a new vision for our institutions, we seek value-added change where we all learn to value more them one world view. Every institution in higher education must enhance the worth of each person by recognizing his or her talents, history, and cultural heritage, and by encouraging a celebration of diversity born out of fuller knowledge of the world" (p. 3).
The preparation and presention of this address has been a difficult and an exciting and enlightening experience for me as an individual. Accepting the opportunity was a good decision for me. In the days ahead, each of us will have the opportunity to experience difficulty, excitement and enlightenment while helping to chart the course for the Springfield of the future. The task for each of us is the ever present challenge in all of education, that of seizing the opportunity and thereby making a difference in our own lives and in the lives of others.
The collective result of each individual's action will be an institutional directive for change. We are the institution that is Springfield College. The buildings, the acreage does not a College make! The students, the faculty, the staff, the physical plant personnel, the administration, the trustees, - the people - are Springfield College. Therefore, what we do is what Springfield College stands for. We as an institution must not only have a written Humanics Philosophy, but must demonstrate by our actions that we are "doing humanics." Then and only then, will Humanics or the Humanics Philosophy be the real meaning of Springfield College.
There is a bright side somewhere
There is justice somewhere
There is freedom somewhere and we must keep on until we find it!
(Words from the Traditional Spiritual "Bright Side"
sung by Jane Sapp at the 1989 Faculty Institute)
REFERENCES
Arsenian, Seth, Editor (1969). The humanics philosophy of Springfield college. Springfield, MA: Springfield College
Congdon, Paul U., Editor (1978). Humanics: inside out in writing. Springfield, MA: Springfield College.
Congdon, Paul U., Editor (1984). Trying to do humanics. Springfield, MA: Springfield College.
Congdon, Paul U., Editor (1986). Humanics at the centennial: still trying. Springfield, MA: Springfield College.
Connecticut Board of Governors for Higher Education. (June 21, 1989). Staff report: Administrative committee, Item: Policy regarding acts of intolerance at Connecticut colleges and universities.
Geis, F. L., Carter, M. R., and Butler, D.J. (1982). Seeing and evaluating people. Newark: University of Delaware.
MacDonald, James B. & Leeper, Robert R. (1965). Theories of instruction. Washington, D.C.: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Massachusetts Board of Regents. (April 14, 1989). Draft: Policy against racism. Boston: Department of Higher Education.
Springfield College Undergraduate Bulletin. (1989-90).
Springfield College Strategic Plan. (May 1988 Draft).
Springfield Sunday Republican. (August 6, 1989).
The New Agenda of Woman for Higher Education. (1987). Washington, D.C.: Office of Women in Higher Education, American Council on Education.

Text and images are owned, held, or licensed by Springfield College and are available for personal, non-commercial, and educational use, provided that ownership is properly cited. A credit line is required and should read: Courtesy of Springfield College, Babson Library, Archives and Special Collections. Any commercial use without written permission from Springfield College is strictly prohibited. Other individuals or entities other than, and in addition to, Springfield College may also own copyrights and other propriety rights. The publishing, exhibiting, or broadcasting party assumes all responsibility for clearing reproduction rights and for any infringement of United States copyright law.